Calderon v. 919 Prospect Avenue LLC

Background

Jose Calderon and Emily Rice lived in an apartment in a building where Calderon worked as superintendent. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants provided the apartment rent-free as part of Calderon’s employment and that neither plaintiff signed a lease. After Calderon was fired, the plaintiffs continued living in the apartment while the defendants pursued an eviction case.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants used several methods to pressure them to leave, including a threat involving a firearm by a porter, allegedly false police reports, an approximately five-day electricity shutoff, failure to address ceiling leaks, and failure to correct a rat infestation. The First Amended Complaint asserted, among other claims, harassment under New York City’s Housing Maintenance Code and private nuisance. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim.

The opinion addressed only the two occupancy-related claims at issue in the motion. The plaintiffs’ separate claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress had been voluntarily dismissed before this opinion.

Housing Maintenance Code Claim

The Housing Maintenance Code prohibits owners of multiple dwellings from harassing tenants or other people lawfully entitled to occupy the dwelling. The defendants did not dispute, for purposes of the motion, that the alleged conduct could constitute harassment. Instead, they argued that Calderon’s termination ended both plaintiffs’ legal right to occupy the apartment, making them occupants without legal protection under the Code.

The plaintiffs responded that they originally entered the apartment with the defendants’ consent as part of Calderon’s employment and had not yet been lawfully evicted. The court relied on New York authorities, including a decision involving a recently fired superintendent, concluding that termination of employment did not by itself make a person an unlawful occupant before actual eviction or voluntary departure. The court also reasoned that the plaintiffs’ initial authorized possession and the defendants’ knowledge of their occupancy supported treating them as people lawfully entitled to occupy the apartment during the relevant period.

Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs, the court concluded that Calderon and Rice had statutory standing—that is, a sufficient legal basis to bring the Housing Maintenance Code harassment claim.

Private Nuisance Claim

Under New York law, private nuisance involves an intentional, substantial, and unreasonable interference with another person’s use and enjoyment of property. A plaintiff need not own or formally rent the property, but must allege some legal interest in the land.

The defendants again argued that the plaintiffs lacked a sufficient property interest because they had no lease. The court rejected that argument, holding that the plaintiffs’ actual possessory interest in the apartment was enough at this stage to support their right to seek protection from unreasonable interference. The court therefore concluded that the First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a private nuisance claim.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Housing Maintenance Code harassment and private nuisance claims. The court directed the defendants to file an answer to the remaining claims within 21 days after the opinion and order and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion listed at ECF No. 30. This ruling concerned whether the complaint could proceed past dismissal; it did not finally resolve the underlying factual disputes.